Loreal] SUMMARIUM_____— 94 AGO 206 BBs ° ‘Commentationes———~ H. Dewrell: How Tamar's Veil Became Joseph’s Coat 161-174 SZ, Aster: Israelite Embassies to Assyria in the First Half of the Bighth Century. 175-198 GD. Miller: Canosicity and Gender Roles: Tobit and Judith as Test Cases... 199-221 A, Damm: Ancient Rhetoric as a Guide to Literary Dependence: The Widow's Mite .. 222-243 F, Prosinger: Vorschlag einer dynamisch-konzentrischen Struktur des Johannesprologs 244-263 T. Callan: Tap8évor in Corinth: | Cor 7,25-40... 264-286 Animadyersiones M. Gilbert: Note philologique et exégétique sur Daniel 3,40 (17) 287-293 Recensiones Vetus Testamentum D. Markl: Carly L, CRoucu, The Making of Israel. Cultural Diversity in the Southem Levant and the Formation of Ethnic Identity in Deuteronomy... 294-296 B.E. Kelle: Mark S. Suri, Poetic Heroes. Literary Commemorations of Warriors and Warrior Culture in the Early Biblical World... 297-299 M.A. Sweeney: Ulrich BERGES, Jesaja 49-54 ...cnnesnense 299-302 S. Van Den Eynde: Barbara Scumirz ~ Helmut ENGEL, Judit . 302-305 Novum Testamentum ¥, Simoens: Chris Kerns, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Dimacy of Jeane ci Po iateaemonmtecnse 306-308 L. Rossi: Joshua W. JwP, Divine Visitation and Hospitality to Strangers in Luke-Acts.. .. 308-311 JM. Granados Rojas: Main GioNac, L “épitre aux Romain... 312-315 Varia RW. Younker: Crig W. Tyson, The Ammonites. Elites, Empires and Socio- political Change .. 315-318 Nuntii personarum et rerum Libri ad Directionem missi.. 319-320312 RECENSIONES Alain GIGNac, L’épitre aux Romains (CbNT 6). Paris, Cerf, 2014. vii-645 p. 15 x 23. € 54.00 This commentary on the Letterto the Romans, written by Alain Gignac (here- after AG) and belonging to the series Commentaire biblique: Nouveau Testa- ‘ment, offers a hermeneutical and synchronic research approach, thereby fol- Jowing along the lines of the other commentaries published in the same series. ‘AG succeeds in bringing together in relatively few pages (645) the bibliogra- phy updated after 1990 and the more important problems of interpretation. His synthesis is complete enough and seeks to offer a contribution to themodel of the literary analysis of the letter. ‘The commentary consists of a general introduction and an explanation of each section. The general introduction deals with the classic question con- cerning the authenticity and integrity of the text, its location and dating, the community in Rome, the composition and genre of the letter. AG does not give a syrthesis of the theology of Romans, but instead offers a triangular structure (65-66) that enables him to arrange the subjects of each subsection (seven in all). The study of exch subsection offers a short introduction, a (rather literal) translation along with textual criticism and some explanation of the chosen vocabulary, a bibliography, interpretation and notes on the Close Reading. The methodological approuch in the commentary raises some hermeneutic problems. The first concerns the use of rhetoric. AG seems reluctant to use any thetorical models (for instance, in particular, those of Jewett, Aune,Aletti) because they are considered tobe very rigid. Moreover, AG does not deal with what Paul says from the “exclisivement logique et rationelle” point of view (57). AG considers, however, that the argument unfolds with the use ofa plot, the juxtaposition of images, questions and answers and the accumulation of quotations from the OT (57), He recognizes that what Paul saysis substantially different from the narrative telling of a story. Yet, despite his intention, most of his interpretations follow the narrative model. Inevery subsection he looks for the characters, the scheme, the movements in space and time and the final resolution of the plot. The result is very close to the rigidity that he himself criticizes and, in not a few cases, it reduces the thrust of the argumentation by displacing the point at issue to a change of literary subjects. The second problem concerns the literary genre of the letter. AG knows that the discussion arises from the attempt by certain authors (Wuellner, Kennedy) to find the rhetorical genre (deliberative, judiciary or epideictic) peculiar to the letter. This is an approach that has been set aside not only by ‘AG butby many other authorsbecause of its inflexibility. To the remarks con- ceming the rhetorical genre AG adds his understanding of the diatribe “qu'il ne s'agit pas véritablement d'un genre littéraire (philosophique ou scolaire) mais sealement d’un style, d’une forme ou d’un dispositif rhétorique” (58), He also recognizes the presence of that style throughout the letter (see the table with a synthesis on page 61). His questionable understanding of the diatribe and his reticence overthe rhetoric lead him to confine the analysis of the discussion to 4éic, thatis o say to the literary style (“diatribic”, dialogic, poetic) of what is said or simply to the images of the words or thought (synkri- sis, anadiplosis) occurring in the text.RECENSIONES, 313 ‘The third difficulty concerns the composition of the text. AG finds 39 ‘discursive scenes” grouped in 7 sections. Although most of these “scenes” coincide with the classical subsections of the letter, the problem arises in the criteria (literary and linguistic) used to delimit them. They consist in the erun- ciation of each unit, that is t0 say in determining real or virtual addressees that make it possible to find the (literary) “form” of each subsection. Analysis of the enunciation makes it possible to determine when it is a matter 0” dia- logue, diatribe, synkrisis, midrash or something else. The result of this proce- dureis the indiscriminate use of rhetorical figures (e.g. synkrisis), literary gen- res (eg. dialogue, poetry), or forms of rabbinical reasoning (¢.g. midrash, ppesher) in delimiting the composition of the text. In that case, as mentioned above, the analysis concludes by deducing the thematic content of the argu ‘ment from the outward form of composition — or of what is being said. By way of summary, AG prefers to concentrate his attention on the enunciation rather than on the lines of thought. Lastly, a final hermeneutic difficulty should be mentioned which comes from the methodological approach used. It concems the understanding of in- tertextuality. AG gives the name ‘intertextuality” to phenomena that are dif. ferent from each other: firstly, references and lexical repetitions to be found in the Pauline text that evoke tex's from the OT (for example, quotations from Isa 52,7; 53,1 in Rom 10,15-16) (394); secondly, lexical links between the apostle’s text and inter-testamental texts (for example, the link between Adam, sin and death in the Apocalypse of Moses) (232); thirdly, lexical connections between the letter and other texts from the NT (for example in Rom 13,9 the mention of the commandments and their reference to Mark 12,31.33; Matt 5,43; 19,19, among others) (495); fourthly, lexical repetitions within the Pauline corpus, both with other letters and within Romans (for example, the relation between Rom 6,1-14 and 6,15 — 7,6; in particular 6,20-22 // 75-6) (257-258). The result of this procedure is a close network of textual links based on common vocabulary (quotations and allusions), links that unfortu- nately do not offer a hierarchy or criterion for the better understanding of the text. Take, for instance, PG’s discussion of the “powerfull and ambiguous i tertextual play” in Rom 5,12-21 (231): the analysis considers all the lexical contacts with intertestamental and rabbinical literature, but it fails to clarify the reason for Paul’s choice, i.e. of Adam instead of Abraham (despite the latter being mentioned in the Midrash Rabbah: Genk. 14,6). Fora considered assessment of this study, apart from the methodological difficulties of the hermeneutics just mentioned, some examples should be given of quaestiones dispuatae in the research on the letter, the treatment of which is uncertain in the commentary. For the sake of brevity, the examples are taken only from the second section of the letter: the function of Romans 5; the identity of baptism in Rom 6,3-4 and the identity of the “I” in Rom 79-28. Rom 5,1-21 is considered a chapter of transition (205). AG recognizes (along with Dunn and Kuss) that the chapter acts as an autonomous section (206); it would be the first Christological chapter in the letter, but at the same time he contends that it serves as a recapitulation of the discussion on justice in Romans 1-4, resuming the “we” of the addressees of the letter. His inter- pretation stresses the thematic links with divine justice revealed in the first